The Fatal Flaw of the Cosmological Argument

[Polymath257]

My point was that the "cosmological argument" is not really about "the cosmos" (the physical universe), it's about the nature of existence as we perceive and understand it. And about how what was 'before' caused what came 'after' which causes what comes 'next'. Which does then beg the question; what was before "before"? What came first?

To put it in terms of physics, the question would be where did the 'rules' that governed the way energy could and could not behave in the 'big bang' come from?

Why do rules need a cause?

 

[Polymath257]

The cosmological argument for the existence of god has many variations, but all of them boil down to something like this (or very similar): "everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe had a cause." Yet even if every component (object, event, etc.) in the universe has a cause, this does not logically imply that the *set* consisting of every component in the universe (the universe itself) has a cause, anymore than the fact that every human has a mother would imply that the human race has a mother (in the same literal sense of the word). The point is that even if it is true that everything in the universe must have a cause, the universe itself need not have a cause. We cannot base our assumptions about the *set* of all things based on observations of the properties of individual things in the set, since even if the properties hold true for all elements in the set, they need not hold true for the set itself.

Well, one issue is the claim that everything that exists has a cause. If applied to 'God', then it implies that God had a cause. It also directly implies an infinite regress of causes (or circular causation).

Some people have recognized this issue and changed the claim to 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause'. The problem with this is in the phrase 'begins to exist'. Does that mean there is a time before it exists? What if time itself begins at some point? In that case, there can be no 'before' and hence no causality. This also has the difficulty that the meaning of the term 'cause' is not every explained and seems to be taken as a given.

The *real* problem is that even this statement goes beyond what we can know given our experiences. At *most* we can say 'All that begins to exist in the universe has a cause in the universe'. But, of course, this modification cannot then be used on the universe as a whole, which blows the whole argument.

And, in fact, even this limited statement is false as there are known events on the subatomic realm that are, strictly speaking, not caused.

 

[PureX]

And you base that assumption on your observations of all of the objects WITHIN the universe, and are trying to apply this property to the universe itself (the set of all such objects). That is the fallacy.

The question is not about the universe, it's about the nature of existence as we experience and understand it. That is a category of experience greater than the cosmological universe, as it includes our metaphysical reality as well as our physical reality.

 

[PureX]

Your statement is only true if there *are* things that existed before. In particular, it cannot be true for the start of time, which may have been at the Big Bang.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang, it began when we became able to recognize it.

 

[PureX]

Why do rules need a cause?

Why does existence require order? ... And yet it does.

 

[Polymath257]

Time did not begin with the Big Bang, it began when we became able to recognize it.

Time existed before there were humans.

 

[WalterTrull]

Time existed before there were humans.

Gotta hunch time doesn't exist now. Well, at least as we know it.

 

[PureX]

Time existed before there were humans.

Time is a perception/conception of reality. That required our participation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The cosmological argument for the existence of god has many variations, but all of them boil down to something like this (or very similar): "everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe had a cause." Yet even if every component (object, event, etc.) in the universe has a cause, this does not logically imply that the *set* consisting of every component in the universe (the universe itself) has a cause, anymore than the fact that every human has a mother would imply that the human race has a mother (in the same literal sense of the word). The point is that even if it is true that everything in the universe must have a cause, the universe itself need not have a cause. We cannot base our assumptions about the *set* of all things based on observations of the properties of individual things in the set, since even if the properties hold true for all elements in the set, they need not hold true for the set itself.

Or put another way, modern science accepts as axiomatic that everything in the universe has a cause, literally trillions of things. How axiomatic is this belief? It precludes even DISCUSSING a designer when looking at organic life--life MUST have had natural causes.

So, it proceeds logically that there is no reason to assume a cause for a thing that contains subsets of trillions of things guided by causes and causality. The whole universe could not logically have a natural cause or a designed cause.

No.

 

[Koldo]

Why does existence require order? ... And yet it does.

Can you prove it ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The cosmological argument for the existence of god has many variations, but all of them boil down to something like this (or very similar): "everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe had a cause." Yet even if every component (object, event, etc.) in the universe has a cause, this does not logically imply that the *set* consisting of every component in the universe (the universe itself) has a cause, anymore than the fact that every human has a mother would imply that the human race has a mother (in the same literal sense of the word). The point is that even if it is true that everything in the universe must have a cause, the universe itself need not have a cause. We cannot base our assumptions about the *set* of all things based on observations of the properties of individual things in the set, since even if the properties hold true for all elements in the set, they need not hold true for the set itself.

Right: "every cell in my body can't be seen with the naked eye, therefore I can't be seen with the naked eye."

 

[Polymath257]

Time is a perception/conception of reality. That required our participation.

No, it is an ordering of events linked to causality. the human perception of time isn't required for time to exist. For example, we cannot detect times less than a millisecond long. Yet such time intervals still exist.

 

[Polymath257]

Another BIG flaw in the Kalam argument is that the vast majority of caused events have more than one cause. There is no reason to think there is a *single* cause that links with all the events we see. There may, logically, be many 'initial' causes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another BIG flaw in the Kalam argument is that the vast majority of caused events have more than one cause. There is no reason to think there is a *single* cause that links with all the events we see. There may, logically, be many 'initial' causes.

Good point. Setting aside all the other problems with the argument should be "therefore, the universe had some number of causes."

 

[PureX]

No, it is an ordering of events linked to causality.

That's just how we see it, because we cannot perceive existence as a singular integrated whole. Time is the result of our limited and relative existential experience/perspective. Existence, however, is omnipresent. It has no time and place.

 

[David T]

Definitely unexplained events. However, cause and effect is just a popular way to view the universe.

Indeed.

 

[Polymath257]

That's just how we see it, because we cannot perceive existence as a singular integrated whole. Time is the result of our limited and relative existential experience/perspective. Existence, however, is omnipresent. It has no time and place.

Well, there is spacetime, which unifies space and time into one geometry.

 

[WalterTrull]

Well, there is spacetime, which unifies space and time into one geometry.

Hmmm... I think you just agreed with PureX

 

[ChristineM]

Why does existence require order? ... And yet it does.

By existence do you mean life?

No order required, quite the contrary. Entropy predicts a short period (in universe terms) of life as the universe progresses to disorder.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

So, it proceeds logically that there is no reason to assume a cause for a thing that contains subsets of trillions of things guided by causes and causality.

Yes.

The whole universe could not logically have a natural cause or a designed cause.

This statement is not correct. It is illogical to assume the universe MUST have a cause if all of its components have causes, but it is also illogical to assume the universe COULD NOT have a natural cause if all of its components have natural causes.